5 ms·

What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and

What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare... As with many other things, the way forward here is to copy the Scandinavian countries and separate cyclists from motorists entirely. Sadly, though, there are too many groups fighting this kind of change.

Xylakant 4y ago
> What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare... This really gets pulled out every single time someone points out the proper distance required for passing a cyclist and it’s wrong. First, passing a cyclist with a car and passing a car with a cycle are asymmetric things. The cyclist needs space to actually go a straight line, the path of a bicycle is never straight - and it sways more at slower speeds. The cyclist also needs space in both directions to make a turn, for example to avoid an obstacle. If you take that space to one side, they cannot even safely turn the other direction. Cars have a significantly higher draft than cyclists. They’re bigger, heavier and scarier. If the cyclist twitches as you pass them, you were too close. Cars just don’t fall over. Cyclists do. Slippery patch on the road, whatever. And when they fall, they need space. The car driver passing the cyclist has no idea how skilled the cyclist is. And unskilled cyclists need more space to maneuver - or make mistakes when scared and fall. See above. The cyclist passing the car knows their skill. And even unskilled cars do not randomly fall over. The danger is asymmetric. A car even slightly touching a cyclist is likely to end up with a major injury or death. A cyclist slightly touching a car is a dent and a scratch. This is why in many places, there’s a mandatory minimum distance when for a car passing a cyclist, but none for cyclist passing a car.
- tsukikage 4y ago
  I'm absolutely not denying the cyclist needs space and motorists have to give them space. I completely agree with this. I completely agree that the danger is asymmetric. I'm saying the cyclist still needs that space even when they are moving faster than the cars around them, because they are still in danger even when they are the fastest moving thing in the vicinity. Cars have blind spots, and cyclists that overtake with insufficient clearance fit precisely into them. Cyclists can still wobble, fall or slip even when they are the ones doing the overtaking, and they still get hurt. Danger is present even when the motorised vehicle is only moving at low speed, because parts of the cyclist and/or bike can still get snagged on parts of the motor vehicle if the cyclist wobbles or falls into it. I firmly believe insufficient clearance between cyclists and cars is a situation that we can and should avoid with sensible design of cycle paths, roads and junctions. In the sad absence of such, enough clearance has to be maintained to avoid collision if either party stops suddenly or the cyclist wobbles or falls. In slow or start/stop traffic, the car is generally trapped between other cars and has nowhere to move to; the cyclist is the only party with any control over the situation.
- microtherion 4y ago
  I don't think the argument was that the cyclist passing close would endanger the car, it's that cyclist seem to sometimes have a disturbing disregard for their OWN safety when it comes to the choices THEY make. Squeezing by cars in start/stop traffic is one of the more debatable ones. There's also rampant red light running. Driving without lights at night, wearing dark clothes, is the one where I see absolutely no upside for their behavior.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    I agree, some Cyclist do seem to have little regard for their own safety - but it’s their own safety. A car making a close pass endangers someone else’s safety.
  - LanceH 4y ago
    As a cyclist and a driver, I've never had a cyclist throw something at my car just for existing. My brother has been shot at with a pellet gun. I've had cars swerve at me to run me off the road. There are a lot of psychos out there with a straight up violent hatred for cyclists and a way too many people justifying it because a cyclist was a danger to themselves at some point.
    - microtherion 4y ago
      Last week, while driving my car, I had a car behind me flash his headlights and honking at me because I decided not to pass a cyclist in front of me in an area I assessed as too narrow to pass safely. So sometimes even automobilists experience psycho attitudes towards cyclists by proxy.
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        Indeed, and that's really crap - sorry you had to go throught that. In any case, the car behind you honking and flashing their headlights was likely not putting your life in danger. Thank you for doing the right thing and being patient with the cyclist though. Rest assured your behaviour is appreciated.
  - 4y ago
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > If the cyclist twitches as you pass them, you were too close. If I feel the breeze as you pass me, you were too close. Actually I think that's quite a good metric, because it ties together your speed and closeness.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > The car driver passing the cyclist has no idea how skilled the cyclist is. If the cyclist changes bikes, then even the cyclist doesn't know. And cyclists change bikes quite a lot, because cycle thieves. You have to get used to a new bike; each machine has different steering geometry and balance.
stefan_ 4y ago
I assume you also wonder why there is an area marked on the train platform you should not stand in, yet people enter it all the time when a train is stopped.
- tsukikage 4y ago
  Thankfully, no-one's attempted to actually enter my car in slow-moving traffic to date.
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    On the other hand, I can guarantee you that many, if not most, urban cyclists have had cars attempt to ram their bikes in both slow- and fast-moving traffic.
fluoridation 4y ago
You do not have the same visibility of the lateral extent of your car as a cyclist has of the lateral extent of their bicycle. I've maneuvered at somewhat high speed through gaps that were only like 5 cm wider than me on each side. You can't do that on a car; you just don't have that kind of line of sight.
- tsukikage 4y ago
  I am very very aware that I lack the visibility a cyclist has. This is precisely what makes having cyclists in my blind spot utterly terrifying. It is even worse when I am driving something larger than a car, and when the traffic is slow-moving rather than entirely stationary.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    Well, one thing at a time. What you were originally talking about was about cyclists making close passes. A cyclist doesn't need to hang around in your blind spot to pass you closely.
matsemann 4y ago
If I put my hand on a table, and someone slams a hammer next to it, I would be justified in being upset about the near-miss as it had a big chance of hurting me. If the hammer is on the table, and I put my hand next to it, there is really no reason for anyone to be angry. I didn't hurt the hammer. And I'm not a hypocrite, as in this case the chance of hurting myself was zero.

Xylakant 4y ago

> What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare... This really gets pulled out every single time someone points out the proper distance required for passing a cyclist and it’s wrong. First, passing a cyclist with a car and passing a car with a cycle are asymmetric things. The cyclist needs space to actually go a straight line, the path of a bicycle is never straight - and it sways more at slower speeds. The cyclist also needs space in both directions to make a turn, for example to avoid an obstacle. If you take that space to one side, they cannot even safely turn the other direction. Cars have a significantly higher draft than cyclists. They’re bigger, heavier and scarier. If the cyclist twitches as you pass them, you were too close. Cars just don’t fall over. Cyclists do. Slippery patch on the road, whatever. And when they fall, they need space. The car driver passing the cyclist has no idea how skilled the cyclist is. And unskilled cyclists need more space to maneuver - or make mistakes when scared and fall. See above. The cyclist passing the car knows their skill. And even unskilled cars do not randomly fall over. The danger is asymmetric. A car even slightly touching a cyclist is likely to end up with a major injury or death. A cyclist slightly touching a car is a dent and a scratch. This is why in many places, there’s a mandatory minimum distance when for a car passing a cyclist, but none for cyclist passing a car.

tsukikage 4y ago
I'm absolutely not denying the cyclist needs space and motorists have to give them space. I completely agree with this. I completely agree that the danger is asymmetric. I'm saying the cyclist still needs that space even when they are moving faster than the cars around them, because they are still in danger even when they are the fastest moving thing in the vicinity. Cars have blind spots, and cyclists that overtake with insufficient clearance fit precisely into them. Cyclists can still wobble, fall or slip even when they are the ones doing the overtaking, and they still get hurt. Danger is present even when the motorised vehicle is only moving at low speed, because parts of the cyclist and/or bike can still get snagged on parts of the motor vehicle if the cyclist wobbles or falls into it. I firmly believe insufficient clearance between cyclists and cars is a situation that we can and should avoid with sensible design of cycle paths, roads and junctions. In the sad absence of such, enough clearance has to be maintained to avoid collision if either party stops suddenly or the cyclist wobbles or falls. In slow or start/stop traffic, the car is generally trapped between other cars and has nowhere to move to; the cyclist is the only party with any control over the situation.
microtherion 4y ago
I don't think the argument was that the cyclist passing close would endanger the car, it's that cyclist seem to sometimes have a disturbing disregard for their OWN safety when it comes to the choices THEY make. Squeezing by cars in start/stop traffic is one of the more debatable ones. There's also rampant red light running. Driving without lights at night, wearing dark clothes, is the one where I see absolutely no upside for their behavior.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  I agree, some Cyclist do seem to have little regard for their own safety - but it’s their own safety. A car making a close pass endangers someone else’s safety.
- LanceH 4y ago
  As a cyclist and a driver, I've never had a cyclist throw something at my car just for existing. My brother has been shot at with a pellet gun. I've had cars swerve at me to run me off the road. There are a lot of psychos out there with a straight up violent hatred for cyclists and a way too many people justifying it because a cyclist was a danger to themselves at some point.
  - microtherion 4y ago
    Last week, while driving my car, I had a car behind me flash his headlights and honking at me because I decided not to pass a cyclist in front of me in an area I assessed as too narrow to pass safely. So sometimes even automobilists experience psycho attitudes towards cyclists by proxy.
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      Indeed, and that's really crap - sorry you had to go throught that. In any case, the car behind you honking and flashing their headlights was likely not putting your life in danger. Thank you for doing the right thing and being patient with the cyclist though. Rest assured your behaviour is appreciated.
- 4y ago
denton-scratch 4y ago
> If the cyclist twitches as you pass them, you were too close. If I feel the breeze as you pass me, you were too close. Actually I think that's quite a good metric, because it ties together your speed and closeness.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> The car driver passing the cyclist has no idea how skilled the cyclist is. If the cyclist changes bikes, then even the cyclist doesn't know. And cyclists change bikes quite a lot, because cycle thieves. You have to get used to a new bike; each machine has different steering geometry and balance.

stefan_ 4y ago

I assume you also wonder why there is an area marked on the train platform you should not stand in, yet people enter it all the time when a train is stopped.

tsukikage 4y ago
Thankfully, no-one's attempted to actually enter my car in slow-moving traffic to date.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  On the other hand, I can guarantee you that many, if not most, urban cyclists have had cars attempt to ram their bikes in both slow- and fast-moving traffic.

fluoridation 4y ago

You do not have the same visibility of the lateral extent of your car as a cyclist has of the lateral extent of their bicycle. I've maneuvered at somewhat high speed through gaps that were only like 5 cm wider than me on each side. You can't do that on a car; you just don't have that kind of line of sight.

tsukikage 4y ago
I am very very aware that I lack the visibility a cyclist has. This is precisely what makes having cyclists in my blind spot utterly terrifying. It is even worse when I am driving something larger than a car, and when the traffic is slow-moving rather than entirely stationary.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  Well, one thing at a time. What you were originally talking about was about cyclists making close passes. A cyclist doesn't need to hang around in your blind spot to pass you closely.

matsemann 4y ago

If I put my hand on a table, and someone slams a hammer next to it, I would be justified in being upset about the near-miss as it had a big chance of hurting me. If the hammer is on the table, and I put my hand next to it, there is really no reason for anyone to be angry. I didn't hurt the hammer. And I'm not a hypocrite, as in this case the chance of hurting myself was zero.